Brain differences in political orientation

Status
Not open for further replies.
deafskeptic said:
I prefer facts as they are even when they're not what I want to hear.
Click to expand...

Me, too. I gives one a realistic perspective from which to operate.
 
Steinhauer said:
Then why is religious discussion not allowed?

censorship?

As I can see, Jillio is the first person to proclaim religious discussion is not allowed, as well as the first person to misrepresent scripture. So, if religious discussion is not allowed, why would Jillio do that?
Click to expand...

It has virtually na.thing to do with a liberal or a conservative agenda.:roll:

Because your brother, or your cousin, or your alter ego, or whoever he is insists on making religious reference to EVERYTHING. You might want to go back and see who brings religion into discussions.

I misrepresented nothing. You, on the other hand, have been known to purposely tell lies in order to try to make a point. Now that's a very Christian behavior for you.:cool2:
 
jillio said:
So the Christian sects can twist the words of the Bible and say God was speaking metaphorically when it is about something they want to do, but take them literally when it involves something they don't want to do.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't presume to speak for Christian sects. I'm just referencing the Bible. That is a very clear cut passage about a specific people and a specific event.

Sending a dude to have sex with his dead brother's wife sounds a lot like pimping to me.
Click to expand...
That's your problem, isn't it?

That's also odd because I thought you were all for interpreting text within its historical social context, and not judging other cultures against the norms of our current American culture.
 
Let's get back on track and see if we can find a way to pacify those that want to bring religion into each and every topic. How about if we discuss the neural correlates associated with religious experience?
 
Reba said:
I wouldn't presume to speak for Christian sects. I'm just referencing the Bible. That is a very clear cut passage about a specific people and a specific event.


That's your problem, isn't it?

That's also odd because I thought you were all for interpreting text within its historical social context, and not judging other cultures against the norms of our current American culture.
Click to expand...

Not a problem for me in the least. Just a demonstration of what can happen when you take things too literally.

You saying that there weren't prostitutes and pimps back then? Might want to check with Mary Magdalene.
 
jillio said:
Reba's interpretation was not copied and pasted from the Bible. And I might remind you that when you do copy and paste, you are also taking out of context. Anyone can find a Bible verse to support anything they want to. The LDS find support for polygamy in the Bible, but the other Christian sects don't. That is why it is not an effective reference for debate.
Click to expand...
Yet you made your comment about spilled seed without any kind of reference at all. Is that more acceptable? I gave the book and chapter. If anyone wants to read more of that context they can. How much of the Bible do you think I should quote in a single post? Enough to make the point, or enough to get me in trouble with the mods?

I provided a biblical support for my interpretation, and you didn't.

If you believe that the Bible is not an effective reference for debate, why did you bring up the "spilled seed" reference in the first place?
 
jillio said:
Life support will not save all babies born too early. It will only save a few that are just below the viability line. And in "saving" them, the baby generally ends up with so many medical and developmental probems that they end up close to a vegetative state.

There is a reason that we have a certain amount of time in our gestation period. It takes that amount of time for a fetus to develop to the point that it can live independent of the mother's womb.
Click to expand...

Of course. :) I well aware, hence my mention, "I suppose they would prefer abortions to life-supporting machine things." I just talked to someone and he is not sure if he remembers that article, The Future of Babies: Artificial Wombs and Pregnant Grandmas | LiveScience, but he think it is, maybe.

Again, I never said life-supporting machines are only way to save them... I offer some interesting information.

If a woman wants to carry her pregnancy to term and give the baby up for adoption, she has the right to do so. If she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, then she has the right not to. No one outsitde of those directly involved should be involving themselves in her decision. And Roe v Wade guarantees the right to privacy between a doctor and his patient.
Click to expand...

Okay, now now. Nowhere in my posts here said she can't have one... She can have her abortion if she wants to, go ahead. I merely offered some thoughts and interesting information...

EDIT: I forget to say something. I know I said life-supporting machines, so I mean, artificial wombs. My bad.
 
jillio said:
Reba's interpretation was not copied and pasted from the Bible. And I might remind you that when you do copy and paste, you are also taking out of context. Anyone can find a Bible verse to support anything they want to. The LDS find support for polygamy in the Bible, but the other Christian sects don't. That is why it is not an effective reference for debate.
Click to expand...

Out of context to copy and paste? :shock: You want the entire Book of Genesis? :hmm:

BTW, I was not using it for debate. I offered mine as an easier to understand version of what Reba posted. There is no point in using Biblical quotes in a debate here, because they can be reported and deleted. That is how people want it here, and I agreed to follow those rules. *shrug*
 
jillio said:
Not a problem for me in the least. Just a demonstration of what can happen when you take things too literally.

You saying that there weren't prostitutes and pimps back then? Might want to check with Mary Magdalene.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget harlots in the Old Testament :P
 
Reba said:
Yet you made your comment about spilled seed without any kind of reference at all. Is that more acceptable? I gave the book and chapter. If anyone wants to read more of that context they can. How much of the Bible do you think I should quote in a single post? Enough to make the point, or enough to get me in trouble with the mods?

I provided a biblical support for my interpretation, and you didn't.

If you believe that the Bible is not an effective reference for debate, why did you bring up the "spilled seed" reference in the first place?
Click to expand...

Your example is not the only place in the Bible that reference is made.

You know, you should consider teaching a Bible school class. You really seem to be wrapped up in it. But AD is not the place for it, even though you jump on every miniscule opportunity to bring it into the discussion.

I have attempted to compromise for the Bible thumpers and discuss science as applied to the religious experience. Evidently, compromise is something that the "Christians" here know nothing about.
 
jillio said:
Not a problem for me in the least. Just a demonstration of what can happen when you take things too literally.

You saying that there weren't prostitutes and pimps back then? Might want to check with Mary Magdalene.
Click to expand...
I never stated that there were no prostitutes in the Bible.
 
jillio said:
Let's get back on track and see if we can find a way to pacify those that want to bring religion into each and every topic. How about if we discuss the neural correlates associated with religious experience?
Click to expand...

I have only seen this occur, in my personal involvement, when a comment that was likely intended to mock Christianity was used. I will always stand up against such things. No need to pacify me. I don't look for that here.
 
saywhatkid said:
Out of context to copy and paste? :shock: You want the entire Book of Genesis? :hmm:

BTW, I was not using it for debate. I offered mine as an easier to understand version of what Reba posted. There is no point in using Biblical quotes in a debate here, because they can be reported and deleted. That is how people want it here, and I agreed to follow those rules. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Yep, out of context.

I see plenty of Biblical quotes being used to debate issues around here, you included. Just because you used a different version doesn't mean that you were not using that quote to support one point and discount another. It just means you were tag teaming.
 
jillio said:
Your example is not the only place in the Bible that reference is made.

You know, you should consider teaching a Bible school class. You really seem to be wrapped up in it. But AD is not the place for it, even though you jump on every miniscule opportunity to bring it into the discussion.

I have attempted to compromise for the Bible thumpers and discuss science as applied to the religious experience. Evidently, compromise is something that the "Christians" here know nothing about.
Click to expand...

I see. Thumpers? :hmm:
 
deafskeptic said:
Let's not forget harlots in the Old Testament :P
Click to expand...
I haven't forgotten them. There were harlots in the Old and New Testaments. I never denied that. What is the point here?
 
saywhatkid said:
I have only seen this occur, in my personal involvement, when a comment that was likely intended to mock Christianity was used. I will always stand up against such things. No need to pacify me. I don't look for that here.
Click to expand...

So, how about the neuronal correlates associated with the religious experience. And that would be all religious experience, not limtited to simply one religion. A muslim brain, a Christian brain, and a Santa Ria brain all show the same activity during religious experience.
 
jillio said:
Yep, out of context.

I see plenty of Biblical quotes being used to debate issues around here, you included. Just because you used a different version doesn't mean that you were not using that quote to support one point and discount another. It just means you were tag teaming.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by tag teaming?
 
jillio said:
Yep, out of context.

I see plenty of Biblical quotes being used to debate issues around here, you included. Just because you used a different version doesn't mean that you were not using that quote to support one point and discount another. It just means you were tag teaming.
Click to expand...

Tag team with Reba? Amazing connection! She knows 50 times more about Bible than I do. I thought I was doing a service for people that are baffled by KJV Bibles. That includes me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top